Determinism & Moral Responsibility

Are we morally responsible with determinism theory? Is atheism a moral necessity if determinism is true?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Moral
• Responsibility
• Determinism
• Free
• Will
• Clutch
• Clutchology
• God
• Morality
• Atheism
• Atheist

[Domzdream]

Friggin awesome vid. Philosophically well put. I'm watching it again...

[Clutchology]

Watch sickliberal's response. He does a good job highlighting a major flaw in this video.

[Clutchology]

I will do that. Thank you.

[Clutchology]

Anyway, fuddydoo, the debate was most intruiging and I congratulate you on a rational response.

However, I have just realised that we have gone completely off the topic of this video and I would like to return to it so that others can comment.

Thank you for taking the time to respond and I hope you continue to do so in the future, but I think we can both agree to disagree on this issue of consciousness (which I really should finish my research before I debate on it).

[HashKeth]

I like the idea that you proposed in this video about the negation of morality in a deterministic universe which eventually falls into the hands of god as first cause. Even though we cannot take responsibility for the actions we take since we are pre-determined to do so, society must still take actions for the "crimes" we have done. Else, if we let criminals go scott free, there will be more crimes on the streets.

[sputnikowns]

@johnnyp76

Dualism is garbage.

Check out Qualiasoup's 'substance dualism' video.

[sputnikowns]

Ugh.

1) Is God really immune from determinism?

2) Yeah, if God abides by determinism, God is responsible, if He/She/It existed. I'm an atheist. If I am psychologically determined, why should I be held accountable for my bad deeds? I still don't understand.

[Gnomefro]

Such examples show that morality is arbitrary rules that organize society in a reasonable way, as well as protect ones the safety of more socially minded agents.

Blame is something you assign to agents acting in anti-social manners. There's no need to require them to not have a history to be able to decide that they are a danger to everyone around them and that they need to be dealt with.

It's perfectly fine to draw the line for causality at a reasonable point, such as a baby eater.

[Gnomefro]

Actions in a deterministic universe are a product of the agent performing the action and the environmental stimuli around him.

It makes sense to hold an agent responsible for an action if the action seems to primarily originate from the agent itself. Say an agent ate your baby simply because it was hungry. It is likely that such behavior will be repeated and other agents need to protect themselves from such anti-social people. So they murder the baby-eater for the good of everyone.

[ericmcbride]

We cannot be held responsible for our actions period.

However, we do not eat our young and slay our family because, in programming, we are usually compelled away from these actions.

But there is no morality, there is simply reasoning and evolutionarily determined programming. Reasoning is of course produced by memory and discourse.

[johnnyp76]

the only way to argue against determinism is to argue the pont for duality. is conciousness and the mind answerable to science? can the workings of the mind be predictable? neuroscience is the frontier (along with quantum theory) to proving determinism to be true or not. there is no morality in the animal world. the difference between us and them is the power to reason and the ability to communicate that reason. we need to research the mind to put this puppy to bed. fatalism - true & depressing.

[SaintVengeance]

Interesting... as a determinist myself, you introduced me to a few different perspectives. Good vid.